Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Illegal Voters May Decide Fate of Senate

Control of the U.S. Senate is up for grabs on Nov. 4, and
illegal voters may tip the balance. Estimates are that more than 14
percent of non-citizens were registered to vote in the elections of 2008
and 2010, and that could now easily exceed the margin of victory in
many tight Senate races.

Democrats typically win more than
80 percent of the votes cast by non-citizens, so votes cast by
non-citizens produce a net bonanza of additional votes for Democrats.
Democrat Al Franken won a Republican U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota by a
margin of only 312 votes in 2008, and with the immense power of
incumbency he is expected to cruise to reelection this time.

New
non-partisan research by professors at Old Dominion University uncovered
the shocking amount of voting by non-citizens, as published by the
Washington Post last Friday. Their work did not choose sides in the
debate over whether non-citizens should be allowed to vote, which
Congress has already answered in the negative by sensibly limiting
voting in federal elections to only American citizens.

This study
concluded that voter ID alone will not eliminate voting by
non-citizens, because voter ID does not require proof of citizenship,
such as a passport or birth certificate. But that loophole is easily
closed by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, just as
one must show proof of citizenship in order to obtain a passport.

Several
states enacted common-sense provisions in order to strengthen voter
integrity in this year's election. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an
attempt to block voter ID from going into effect in Texas, so at least
the Lone Star state will be able to limit mischief at their polls in
this election.

Other states are not so fortunate. Wisconsin
passed a voter ID law that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit, but the
U.S. Supreme Court then blocked that good law from going into effect
this November.

In July, three non-citizens were indicted for
illegal voting in Ohio in the 2012 presidential election.

But most
illegal voting cases end in a plea bargain that results in erasure of
the convictions after a year if the defendant stays out of additional
trouble for that long.

In Colorado, which could decide which party
controls the U.S. Senate, votes are now cast entirely by mail with
little protection against voter fraud. A total of 3.6 million ballots
were sent to Coloradans based on addresses as old as 2008, which is six
years ago.

One Colorado state senator said he has been to
households that have received as many as seven separate ballots, and the
person now living there could vote all seven ballots without anyone
noticing.

Paid political activists, known as "harvesters," can gather up
to 10 ballots of others and then dump them all in an unguarded drop
box, and there is nothing that stops harvesters from gathering and
voting even more.

What happens to unused ballots that people throw
out after receiving them in the mail? Most people do not shred their
trash, so many unused ballots inevitably end up in apartment complex
garbage bins where they are available to be filled in and sent in by
unscrupulous party workers.

The lack of voting integrity makes it
far from clear whether the election outcome will reflect the will of the
voters. The essential role played by poll watchers is impossible in
Colorado's system of mail-only balloting.

The corrupt practice of
counting votes that were cast in the names of dead people reemerged in
North Carolina in 2012. The executive director of that state's election
board reported that the votes of 81 dead people were counted, most of
whom had died before it was possible for them to cast absentee ballots.

A
shocking total of 35,570 voters in North Carolina had the same last and
first names and birth dates of voters who also cast ballots in other
states. Many hundreds of those voters even had the same last four digits
of their Social Security numbers as people having identical names and
birthdays who also voted in other states.

Reforms passed in North
Carolina are not effective in time to ensure voter integrity in this
election, where there is a close race for the U.S. Senate seat. No voter
ID is yet in effect there.

The top priority of Obama's Department
of Justice has been to oppose voter ID laws passed by various states.
But Attorney General Eric Holder has announced his resignation, and the
Senate should not confirm any successor who opposes state efforts to
improve voter integrity.

Who Says Obamacare Isn't A Major Factor in Midterms

Some Democrats and their advocates in the press believe
Obamacare, a year into implementation, is no longer much of a factor in
the midterm elections. But no one has told Republican candidates, who
are still pounding away at the Affordable Care Act on the stump. And no
one has told voters, especially those in states with closely contested
Senate races, who regularly place it among the top issues of the
campaign.

In Arkansas, Republican challenger Tom Cotton is pulling
ahead of incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor partly on the strength of
a relentless focus on Obamacare. Cotton's newest ad attacks Pryor over
the law, as did two of Cotton's four previous ads.

"In our
polling, (Obamacare) continues to be just as hot as it's been all year
long," says a source in the Cotton campaign. "If you look at a word
cloud of voters' biggest hesitation in voting for Mark Pryor, the two
biggest words are 'Obama' and 'Obamacare.' Everything after that is
almost an afterthought."

Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy, challenging
incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, is pushing just
as hard. "Sen. Landrieu, I voted for you before, but when you voted for
Obamacare, I knew I'd made a mistake," says a woman in a Cassidy ad
featuring Landrieu voters who say her support of the health care law
turned them away from Democrats.

Joni Ernst, leading the Senate
race in Iowa, is pushing hard on Obamacare, too. And in North Carolina,
where Republican Thom Tillis is trying to catch up to incumbent
Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, Obamacare is not just a bad law leading to
higher premiums, high deductibles and narrower choices of doctors --
it's also a window into Hagan's character.

"Its importance is not
only in the policy itself, but more so in the fact that Sen. Hagan said
at least 24 times that 'if you like your health care, you can keep it,'"
says a Tillis campaign source.

So Republican candidates bash
Obamacare and move up in the polls. Given that public opinion remains
firmly against the health care law -- as it has been for years -- that's
not a shock. Democratic beliefs to the contrary are probably wishful
thinking.

Polls suggest that more and more, opposition to
Obamacare is based on voters' personal experience, and not just on what
they have heard or read about the law.

Since Obamacare was enacted
in 2010, the Gallup polling organization has asked people whether the
law has helped or hurt them personally, or whether they haven't been
affected at all. In the latest survey, most people -- 54 percent -- said
they have not been affected. But 27 percent said they have been
affected and hurt, while a smaller group, 16 percent, said they have
been helped.

"Since the start of this year, the percentage saying
the law has helped them has increased from 10 percent to 16 percent,"
Gallup noted, "while the percentage saying it has hurt them has also
gone up, and by a similar amount, from 19 percent to 27 percent."

The trend is pretty clear: more people hurt then helped.

Gallup
found an intriguing partisan gap in its results. Looking just at those
who said they have been affected by Obamacare, 27 percent of Democrats
said they had been helped, while 15 percent said they had been hurt.
Among independents, the numbers were almost the opposite: 16 percent
said they had been helped, while 27 percent said they had been hurt. And
among Republicans, just 4 percent said they had been helped, while 40
percent said they had been hurt.

It's unclear whether poll
respondents were inserting their political biases into what they said
were their personal experiences, or whether Obamacare has helped more
Democrats than anyone else. The latter could make sense; after all, the
law was designed by Democrats, passed on strict party-line votes, and
directed in significant part toward Democratic constituencies.

But
helping Democrats isn't enough to win an election. So Democratic
candidates respond to voter unhappiness by pledging to "fix" Obamacare.
But their hearts don't seem to be in it. At a recent debate in New
Hampshire, incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen was asked to list
her proposed fixes, and all she could come up with was a suggestion to
name a committee to study problems with the Obamacare website.

That
does almost nothing to address voters' concerns, which remain a potent
factor in the campaign.

The bottom line is, there's a reason Republicans
keep pushing so hard against Obamacare: So far, it's working.

A
wolf cries tears. It’s ok for Hamas-CAIR to fund the arming of savages
like Hamas in the cause of jihad and Islamic Jew-hatred (as proven on
the Holy Land Foundation trial), but infidels defending themselves —
that is haram.

And what did I say? I warned any homicidal jihadi that there would be
defensive measures taken. Unlike Hamas-CAIR, we do everything within
the law. Why has hasn’t Hamas-CAIR ever addressed the hundreds of death
threats we get as part of standing against jihad? If they denounced
those, maybe counter-jihad speakers wouldn’t have to have armed police
at our events.

After the Oklahoma beheading and last weeks daily acts of jihad in Canada and New York, Americans would do well to be prepared.
...

In October 2011,
the Obama Administration banned all mention of Islam and jihad in
connection with terrorism from counterterror training, for the FBI as
well as other agencies. Three years later, the former Director of the
National Counterterrorism Center laments that we don’t have enough FBI
agents who understand Islam.

But that is what the Obama Administration wanted. They wanted an FBI
full of agents who didn’t know anything about Islam, because they wanted
to pretend that Islam had no connection with terrorism. Counter-terror
materials were scrubbed of all mention of Islam and jihad, and FBI
trainers (including me) who spoke about the motives and goals of the
jihadists were dismissed. And now Leiter wonders why agents don’t know
anything about Islam.

Leiter’s solution? More Muslim agents. And no doubt when they are
hired, there will be no serious attempt to determine whether these
agents have any sympathies for or ties to the global jihad. The vetting
agents won’t know how to make such determinations, and to make too
thorough an investigation would be “Islamophobic.”

(CNSNews.com) – Former Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center Michael Leiter told NBC’s “Meet the Press”
Sunday that the FBI does not have enough Muslim agents or agents who
understand Islam.

“We don’t have enough Muslim FBI agents. We don’t have enough FBI
agents who understand Islam, and we don’t have enough people in
government who are doing counterterrorism, who understand 15-to-29-year
olds. They’re disengaged, and this is also the group which is likely to
be most violent. It can’t just be Nancy Reagan with, ‘Say no to drugs.’
You have to do engagement with that demographic,” said Leiter.

Leiter acknowledged that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
is using social media more so than al Qaeda did. He said ISIS tries to
recruit “Jihadi Cool,” a new form of militant Jihadism designed to
appeal to young people as something fashionable or cool….

Op-ed:Merging the Caliphate with the NWO...The
Truth ExposedBy: Diane Sori and Craig Andresen (RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS)

The specter of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining control of an entire
nation in the Middle East is again raising its barbaric head but NOT
high enough to become radar visible…until now that is.

In this investigative article, we will expose Obama’s planned efforts
to once again install his islamic counterparts into the mix. Consider
this a 'make-good' for losing Egypt to the secular el-Sisi government
after the Muslim Brotherhood/Obama led coup toppled Hosni Mubarak from power.

This time the target is Jordan and this time Obama’s doctrine has a decidedly different twist.

Rather than simply forcing a vacuum of power to be filled by whatever
branch of 7th century barbarians who get there first, this coup will
have the earmarks of a ‘peaceful’ transition to a more western friendly,
more western form of government...something which, unless you know the
truth, will be more accepted by the general population.

Rest assured where Obama is concerned…when he has HIS hand in the pot
stirring up trouble...the wolf will be far worse and the sheep’s
clothing will be far more tailored.

As we pointed out in our co-written series of articles, 'Israel's
Allies and Enemies: The Truth Exposed...' published in both 'The
National Patriot' and in 'The Patriot Factor' in August of this year,
King Abdullah II of Jordan is on shaky ground, as we exposed his
connection to the Muslim Brotherhood along with his anti-Israel stance
despite the facade he presents to the rest of the world.

We now know, via our Middle East contacts, that Abdullah's grip on
power is deteriorating more rapidly than we believed just a few short
months ago, and we also know that he is in the process of liquidating
his assets…essentially selling off his personal and substantial holdings,
including a portfolio of real estate holdings and other assets around
the world.

Abdullah is sensing the inevitable. He knows his days in power are
numbered and...we believe...he knows that he will most likely, before
the end of Obama’s dictatorship in 2016, be unwelcome in his own
country. Having cash on hand will allow him to live anywhere he chooses
in the opulent lifestyle to which he and his family are accustomed.

Now let's look through this scenario in the terms of three important questions and the most plausible answers.

First question...when are things going to happen?

Answer: According to our inside sources things are happening very
quickly to the effect that Jordan's King Abdullah might possibly fall
in 2015...systematically deposed by the Obama administration and very
despised by the Palestinian majority. The fact that Abdullah openly
would NOT join the war on ISIS up to two days before the war began shows
that his American controlled army basically joined the war without his
consent and confirms the fact that he is just a figurehead with Obama's
administration pulling the strings. When you are an American controlled
dictator and you do something extreme, history teaches us that the U.S.
will NOT have a problem letting you go.

And while there are some who believe Abdullah's rule may possibly
last another two years, we believe that Obama will do everything he can
to accelerate that timeline. Remember, Obama's goal is to make sure the caliphate is in place
throughout the Middle East while he is still in office.

We also believe that Obama's timeline for
replacing King Abdullah is at most one year and he would prefer to
have this accomplished sooner rather than later because he does NOT want
this to become a 'feature' of the 2016 election, that is unless he can
install a new leader in Jordan who can be presented to the public as a
moderate as that would provide a plank for his party's election bid in
2016. Without a doubt such a transition must be complete and take root
in Jordan before a pro-Israel Republican takes the White House otherwise
the future of the caliphate will be severely compromised.

Second question...how will Obama orchestrate this 'transition' on behalf of the caliphate?

Answer: As usual, Obama will try to divert and deflect our attention
away from the happenings in Jordan by forcing us instead to focus on
events occurring in the Egyptian controlled Sinai Peninsula. Basically
ignored by the Obama controlled media until now...or given a cursory
mention at best...is the fact that in the last four days two attacks
have occurred in the Sinai where at least 31 Egyptian soldiers were
killed by islamic terrorists. The first attack, near the town of Sheikh
Zuwaid, happened around 2pm this past Friday when 28 soldiers were
killed and 28 others were wounded in what appears to have been a
'payback' attack by components of the Muslim Brotherhood for the ouster
of Mohamed Morsi. The other three soldiers killed happened in the nearby
town of El Arish, when islamic militants opened fire on a military
checkpoint.

And the root cause of all this is Egypt's new secular government,
their outward rejection of the caliphate, and their new alliance with
Israel.

The United States has a long history of choosing and backing new
leaders in that volatile part of the world and have used covert
involvement by the CIA to accomplish regime change. While these efforts
NEVER seem to pan out in the long run, short term goals have none the
less been achieved. Cases in point include the Shah of Iran, the tenuous
backing of Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq War, and the support of
Mubarak in Egypt while he was in power. And make NO mistake the CIA and
Obama's hands will be all over the upcoming changes in Jordan including,
we believe, a possible offer of refuge here in the U.S. for Abdullah
and his family.Questions three...who will be Obama's hand-picked successor to Abdullah?

Answer: According to our Middle East sources, Obama and the CIA will
push for the wrong man for Jordan but the right man for the caliphate
after the king leaves. We believe Jordanian-Palestinian Taher Nashat
al-Masri will be the Obama regime's choice to lead a new Jordan. And
while biographical information including his positions held within the
Jordanian government is plentiful on the internet, al-Masri's current
political ties and allegiances have all but been wiped clean leading one
to wonder...why.

What little could be found points to the fact that while al-Masri
might appear palatable on the surface because he, like so many others
before him who morphed into becoming America's enemies, al-Masri
received his education right here in the U.S....garnering a degree in
economics from North Texas University. Upon his return to Jordan,
al-Masri joined the Independent Party and worked his way up Jordan's
governmental ranks to eventually be appointed Prime Minister of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan by then King Hussein. Serving from June 19,
1991 to November 21, 1991, Prime Minister al-Masri strove to change
Jordan's election laws. During his time in office he also opposed the
American invasion of Iraq during the first Gulf War, but fearing that
the continued presence of Iranians on Arab soil could instigate
incidents of sabotage by islamic fundamentalists, al-Masri switched
sides now wanting the Americans to stay in Iraq to help keep the country
"out of the hands of the fundamentalists"...which is quite the
opposite of where he now stands.

Coming from a rich Palestinian family known for their loyalty to
Jordan's kings and the monarchy, isn't it strange that Jordan's
'supposed' moderate king can have Israel's enemies as his closest
allies. Also, the al-Masri family itself is a bit too close for comfort
to the Muslim Brotherhood, and when he was Prime Minister, al-Masri
closely embraced his kings policy of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood.
As of today al-Masri continues to have close ties with the Muslim
Brotherhood along with being quite unpopular with the Jordanian-Palestinians themselves. While this is NOT a problem for Obama, it must
be noted that al-Masri's close cousin is one of the major share holders
of the Arab Bank...a bank which was recently convicted of financing the
Hamas terrorist organization. In fact, that cousin testified in
favor of the bank at the September trial held in New York.

Also of note is the fact that the al-Masri family had close personal
ties to Yassir Arafat and the PLO. And while al-Marsi was serving as the
Jordanian Senate Chairman in 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood was in the
throes of demanding the king's government postpone its upcoming
parliamentary elections due to unrest within the Brotherhood's ranks
over its planned boycott of the vote...and guess whose side al-Masri
supported.

Worth noting is that Taher Nashat al-Masri is a frequent guest at the
U.S Embassy in Amman, including at the high profile July 4th
celebration held each year. And U.S. Embassy cables show al-Masri to be
one of the embassy's most frequently used 'sources.' Now add in the fact
that al-Masri is unpopular with the Palestinian majority because he is
considered one of the king's closest allies, and while this is NOT an
issue for Obama, it is an issue for the Palestinian-Jordanians because
their wanted candidates...candidates such as Mudar Zahran...are being
deliberately ignored by this administration.

The deliberate ignoring of Zahran and his people shows that the Obama
administration has already decided who Jordan's next head of state will
be. Regardless of the name, know it will be someone who will empower the
Muslim Brotherhood and that in turn will have a direct affect on U.S.
relations in the Middle East. Such an appointment will also jeopardize
Israel's borders, and with Israel being the only stable and dependable
ally the U.S. has left in the Middle East, Israel will now be forced to
protect its own borders instead of helping the U.S. keep the terrorists
at bay.

Knowing all this, al-Masri could very well be where the caliphate and
the New World Order (NWO) blend together and with the addition of the
Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS this could create a force that could become
insurmountable. And with ISIS now reportedly raking in more than one
million dollars per day in oil revenues, and with them wanting a seat at
the NWO table they need al-Masri to be a bridge between radical islam
and a more stable recognized government such as that in Jordan. And if Obama has
designs to ever sit at the head of that table...which we know he
does...laying the groundwork by supporting al-Masri would give him the
edge in that regard.

And the bottom line to all this remains a delicate balance of power in
the Middle East being overturned with the fall of Abdullah.
Currently, untold by the media is that Abdullah is becoming increasingly
isolated from his own military in addition to the afore mentioned
selling off of his assets. Also remember, Obama's goal is to divide
Jordan's neighbor, Syria, into easily controlled quadrants of sorts
where it might become possible to if NOT topple al-Assad's government in
full to at least target and then assassinate al-Assad making Syria then
ripe for the islamic picking.

Ultimately, NONE of this is good for American interests at home nor
on the world stage, and all this places our greatest ally in the
region... Israel...in dire jeopardy. Until the White House is in
Republican, pro-Israel, and anti-islamic hands, it will fall to Israel
and Egypt to take immediate NO holds barred joint military action,
coupled with monetary and weapons appropriations by a Republican
controlled U.S. Congress, to diffuse the ticking bomb of World War III.

Followers

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on American Political Radio. http://listen.samcloud.com/w/73891/American-Political-Radio#history